skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Many local libraries carry the Economist. You need to use one of the mostly-hideous library readers -- looking at you, PressReader -- but, still, free.
Python isn't even remotely close to the popularity Perl had or its omnipresence till date. Python couldn't reach the peak of nearly anything it tried. For serious app dev Java/Golang won, Web is ruled by JS/React, C/C++/Rust rules places where performance is more critical. Python's refusal to take text and OS work serious has largely rendered it useless for serious scripting work. People use shell and old timers use Perl.

In the AI world, Python use is mostly invoke a series of framework API(a few hundred lines of code), for data manipulation you still have to use shell or Perl.

The internet, telecommunications, bioinformatics etc industries and entire generations of backend were built entirely in Perl. And by many definitions is still the case.
I agree, I switched from C++ to C and I found it relaxing to be able to just forgot about a million language features and their complicated interactions.

I also find you have some experience, know how to build good abstractions and have a set of good data structures, there is no issue with address complex problems in C.
What does replacing programmers have to do with typing speed? You mean the stuff copilot does was never the limiting factor of productivity? I agree, but copilot is not replacing programmers; replacing programmers is more than typing and proponents know that. It might get there.

I still don't understand how it would hurt if you can focus on the parts that do influence your productivity and have the rest appear automatically. But that's just me.
It's contextualization, not a logical fallacy.

Let's stop treating LLMs as spooky.
I liken this to asking people who don’t use a GPS how they drive and if they have every intersection memorized. It’s not about absolute knowledge of a codebase, but intimate familiarity.

I also don’t think it’s a coincidence most people in the comments seem to be using some flavor of vim. I think using an editor designed before these tools were available will make it much easier than afterwards.

I’m not sure I’m the best case, but I just turned off copilot, haven’t bothered to configure my autocomplete yet in my latest neovim config, and only use an LSP so my macros can be highlighted differently. I write primarily in Clojure though, so inline docs and go to definition are just a part of life.

I don’t really have anything against LSPs, but neovim, telescope, and the repl have always gotten me where I want to go

With regards to my flow, I’ll normally have 1 vim session for every 1 project, each with 1-5 tabs open, each tab with up to 12 splits. There isn’t really structure to the tabs or splits, I’m just liberal with opening splits and conservative with closing them. To me it can be really helpful to have all the recent code I’ve been working on open at one time, and if it’s not, I just pop a new tab and start fresh
Here's a StackExchange thread on this exact mix-up (a "misnegation"):

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fai...
I like the visualization aspect. Curious how the data is being aggregated. Previously, I've used this as a source: https://gerikson.com/hnlo/
> if LLMs are going to change the way we code

They are not

> the way we code is not even print debugging for junior developers.

what

> I know very few senior developers that use a debugger at all

I know very few, too, and it's their loss. Debugging is immeasurably more useful to understand and get to the root of the problem in a complex system than printf'ing and logging.

> What is the best diet for those easily triggered?

The best diet for you is to unplug from the hype trains on Twitter and HN.
I'd like to take this question one step further: When do you think is an appropriate point to take a sabbatical? After working for a year, two years, three etc. The reason I'm asking is that junior developers might feel the need for a break earlier in their careers compared to experienced devs.
> Install prerequisites: Java 17 or later

Woof. You've lost virtually everyone at the outset.
Because being a parent is hard.
Not sure about others who commented in this post, but all guys I met in real life who refuse to use advanced features of an IDE like autocomplete, refactoring ... are either: 1) have never work in a truly large scale projects (and usually familiar only with weak type languages - which IDE cannot help much so they cannot grow over a certain limit - chicken and egg?). 2) do not know what are the differences between a rename/search features offered by IDE and terminal commands to achieve similar objectives. 3) do not really care about productivity (use find & xargs for searching and does not even bother to write a script? meehh)

So when someone says he do not need an IDE because its feature are just distraction, my first question is always about the biggest project that he has worked with, and the second one is how he do rename/navigation/... with his code base. Never find a single guy does not fall out of these 3 groups.

Copilot is another thing for me. The reason is its accuracy is not good enough yet. The moment it can produce code align with my intention 100% accuracy, just like how search/refactor/suggestion that IDEs are currently offer, I will include it in my workflow instantly.
I had no choice most of my career doing Rails.

Now I do C++ and I would fight to the death to keep autocomplete.

But Copilot I bought a license for a got a refund for after a few months. In the net, it wastes your time.

And I mean, copilot in particular is especially bad. It refuses lots of valid programming questions. Other LLMs are better. But they still are wrong a lot.
How about fixing the format? Something that is obviously broken and resulting in patient deaths should really be considered a top priority. It's either malice or masskve incompetence. If these protocols were open there would definitely be volunteers willing to help fix it.
Not quite. DLL Hell was the situation when apps installed their dynamically linked dependencies globally, so that when two apps shipped different versions of the same library they could conflict. The situation was much rarer for dependencies because dependency trees simply weren't that deep in that era.

It had also been solved since the introduction of assembly versioning over 20 years ago, which provided a standard way to have multiple versions of the same dependency installed and loaded side by side. Later Windows versions also added the ability to do the same for app-local DLLs, to the point where you can have different parts of your code get different versions of the DLL when they ask for it within the same process. So, for all practical purposes, it has been a solved problem for a very long time now.
Every even number?
If you just used a library for a few times or new to the language, LSP is indispensable and immensely helpful and productive. But after working with them for a long, you automatically memorize things and don’t really need them anymore. Until you work with a new library. And nowadays, library and frameworks make the heaviest burden of the daily programming task, not the language.
Assuming the script even worked fine in the first place. Usually quite unlikely.
Person below says they (the whole team) already joined Nvidia.
Yeah, I got chatgpt to help me write a yaoi story between an interdimensional terrorist and a plant-being starship captain (If you recognize the latter, no, it's not what you think, either).

It's actually not hard.
>. You do have a test server, and aren't just testing locally, right? Whatever this is?

Of course I didn't test in a client-server setup, that's why chat gpt manage to fool me, because I know all those terms, and that was not the only alternative I looked up. Before trying Infinispan I tried Apache Ignite and the api was the same for client-server and embedded mode; in hazelcast the api was the same for client-server and embedded mode, so I just presumed it would be the same for Infinispan AND I had Chat GPT re-assuring me.

The takeaway about Chat GPT for me is -- if there's plenty of examples/knowledge out there, it's ok to trust it, but if you're pushing the envelope, the knowledge is obscure, not many examples, DO NOT TRUST it.

DO NOT assume that just because the information is in the documentation, chat GPT has the knowledge or insight and you can cut corners by asking chat GPT.

And it's not even obscure information -- we've asked Chat GPT about the behavior of PostgreSql batchupserts/locking and it also failed to understand how that works.

Basically, I cannot trust it on anything that's hard -- my 20 years of experience have made me weary of certain topics and whenever those come up, I KNOW that I don't know, I KNOW that that particular topic is tricky, obscure, niche and my output is low confidence, and I need to slow down.

The more you use Chat GPT, the more likely it will screw you over in subtle ways; I remember being very surprised about how could so very subtle bugs arise EXACTLY in the pieces of code I deemed very unlikely to need tests.

I know our interns/younger folks use it for everything and I just hope there's got to be some ways to profit from people mindlessly using it.
I am close to deciding to do this with 2025; go hack on things I like, ignore the news (tech news included) and build things. I am starting to need it as I am starting to dislike the profession; love coding just not coding for anything related to money.
This question reminds me of the first time I met a blind programmer.

I asked him how he managed to code, and he replied with something that stayed with me: a good programmer should organize software in such a way that every piece of code has a clear and logical place. The organization should be so intuitive that anyone could build a mental model of the structure and navigate it easily, even without seeing it.

It felt like something out of a Yoda or Mr. Miyagi lesson. Skeptical, I asked his colleagues if he was truly able to code or if he was just exaggerating. To my surprise, they told me not only was he capable, but he was the best programmer they had ever worked with. They said no one else came close to writing code as organized as his.

That conversation changed my perspective. Ever since, whenever I’m unsure where to place new code, I don’t think about DDD or any specific methodology. Instead, I try to follow the logic and structure of the project in a way that feels natural and easy to follow later.

Later in life, I met two other blind programmers and heard similar stories about their ability to produce well-organized code.

To bring this back to the original question: I view LSP/IDE features the same way those programmers view "visual aids." Code should be organized according to a clear and logical structure that makes it easy to navigate.

Relying on features like Ctrl+Click to find where things are located worries me. Why? Because it can mask structural flaws in the codebase. If we can't intuitively figure out where something belongs, that’s a sign the codebase lacks structure—and that should motivate us to refactor it.

Not only do I avoid using LSP features, but I’m also opposed to their use. While they can help with navigation, they may prevent developers from experiencing and addressing the underlying structural issues in their code.
If you absolutely need a way to install dependencies globally such that they can be shared between apps, you can still do that without version conflicts if you write proper manifests for them and use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-by-side_assembly.

But it's easier to just package a local copy and not worry about any of this, so that's what people mostly do now.
π is derived from the circle, which is defined by distance from a single point.

ϖ is derived from the lemniscate of Bernoulli, which is defined by distances from two points.

Is there an analogous constant that is derived from a shape defined by distances from three points?
> This is the fundamental truth that those pushing AI as a replacement for programmers miss (intentionally or not).

I think this blend of comment shows a good dose of ignorance discussing the role of AI as a replacement for programmers.

It's not like PMs are suddenly seeing engineers vanish from software projects. It's that AI makes developers so much more productive that you only need a subset of them to meet your work requirements.

To give you an example, AI tools can indeed help you write whole modules. Yes, code can be buggy. Yet, the "typing" part is not what developers benefit from AI. Developers can iterate way faster on designs and implementations by prompting LLMs to generate new components based on new rewuirements, which saves you the job of refactoring any code. LLMs can instantly review changes and suggest ways to improve it, which would require either reading up on the topic or asking a fellow engineer on payroll to spend their time doing the same job. LLMs can explain entire codebases to you without asking a single question to veteran engineers in the team. LLMs can even write all your unit tests and rewrite them again and again as you see fit. LLMs can even recommend best practices, explain tradeoffs of approaches, and suggest suitable names for methods/variables based on specific criterias.

This means AI can do a multitude of jobs that previously you needed a whole team to do, and for that you no longer need whole teams to do a job.
I think the smart people working on them understand, that a llm can fundamentally never be trusted with the math. It does not do calculation, it guesses the next token. Mathematically, the linear algebra behind a llm does not analytically translate to all feasible math. Therefore, there’s always a chance of error in the output. And the very purpose of a calculator is to be precise. If I need to second-guess the result, I might as well not use the llm in the first place.
Tell that to the board.
The article states that order of join matters because then nest loops differently. But we still go through entire loops everywhere. Where do those numbers in the example come from? If we have 1000, 20 and 200 elements in 3 loops, algorithmically, it does not matter in which order you iterate. Complexity is always 1000×20×200.

What am I missing?
The front-end development of web applications showcases client-side programming and is responsible for smooth UI performance. It can be accomplished by using streamlined technologies. Discover the best frontend development tools to create a seamless, user-friendly experience. Check out our blog link now!
yes you can blink leds
JLCSearch – Find the most in-stock jlcpcb parts
JLC is great for getting prototypes quickly, but it was difficult to find the most stocked parts. I built on the great work done by the jlcparts project https://github.com/yaqwsx/jlcparts and built a simpler interface and JSON API

This is brand new but has already been pretty helpful for part selection for my boards. Hope it could be useful for others as well!
Native EN parser here. I would never consider this usage correct except as a rhetorical (facetious) insult. People may well repeat it without understanding the original nor their mistake. Although if enough people bust the syntax, it may attract descriptivist reporting, as with the widely observed malapropism "irregardless".

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fai...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
National Cryptologic Museum (NSA/CSS) New Temporary Exhibit on Project Stargate
Thanks. I connected you on LinkedIn by the name of Protyasha Roy. Please accept it I can't send message otherwise.
So, a check list for check lists is the most important check list?
Check :)
lol, it's actually not an AI generating landing page
I just finished almost 5 years out of the corporate world after a pretty rough family loss. Many months of it were busy fighting personal fires. Many months were explorations into other career paths. And then when things stabilized and I realized my motivations, many months were spent hacking.

I only really regret treating the time off as more of an issue than it was. I was convinced by month 10 that I had failed to meet some imaginary, impossible deadline I had set for myself against the imaginary, impossible expectations of imaginary and impossible people. That cognitive distortion only got in the way of the inevitable and only possible resolution, which was a better sense of my own motivations and a broader horizon to sail toward hope again.

I would agree with the advice of everyone here, and add: If you’re stressed about the opportunity cost of lost earnings, weigh it against your sense of value for the time you’ll take off, whether it’s in the skills you’ll be building, or the new experiences, or the renewed mental health. And above all, talk to your friends early and often. Even if the roof is on fire, especially when the roof is on fire.
Not sure it is these days; in my youth in the 80s-90s, at least 5 fathers of friends committed suicide (4 by hanging, 1 by gassing himself in his car). Might be more I don't know about.

No sure about the stats / difference.
Just an FYI, this is writeup from August 2023 and a lot has changed (for the better!) for RDNA3 AI/ML support.

That being said, I did some very recent inference testing on an W7900 (using the same testing methodology used by Embedded LLM's recent post to compare to vLLM's recently added Radeon GGUF support [1]) and MLC continues to perform quite well. On Llama 3.1 8B, MLC's q4f16_1 (4.21MB weights) performed +35% faster than llama.cpp w/ Q4_K_M w/ their ROCm/HIP backend (4.30MB weights, 2% size difference).

That makes MLC still the generally fastest standalone inference engine for RDNA3 by a country mile. However, you have much less flexibility with quants and by and large have to compile your own for every model, so llama.cpp is probably still more flexible for general use. Also llama.cpp's (recently added to llama-server) speculative decoding can also give some pretty sizable performance gains. Using a 70B Q4_K_M + 1B Q8_0 draft model improves output token throughput by 59% on the same ShareGPT testing. I've also been running tests with Qwen2.5-Coder and using a 0.5-3B draft model for speculative decoding gives even bigger gains on average (depends highly on acceptance rate).

Note, I think for local use, vLLM GGUF is still not suitable at all. When testing w/ a 70B Q4_K_M model (only 40GB), loading, engine warmup, and graph compilation took on avg 40 minutes. llama.cpp takes 7-8s to load the same model.

At this point for RDNA3, basically everything I need works/runs for my use cases (primarily LLM development and local inferencing), but almost always slower than an RTX 3090/A6000 Ampere (a new 24GB 7900 XTX is $850 atm, used or refurbished 24 GB RTX 3090s are in in the same ballpark, about $800 atm; a new 48GB W7900 goes for $3600 while an 48GB A6000 (Ampere) goes for $4600). The efficiency gains can be sizable. Eg, on my standard llama-bench test w/ llama2-7b-q4_0, the RTX 3090 gets a tg128 of 168 t/s while the 7900 XTX only gets 118 t/s even though both have similar memory bandwidth (936.2 GB/s vs 960 GB/s). It's also worth noting that since the beginning of the year, the llama.cpp CUDA implementation has gotten almost 25% faster, while the ROCm version's performance has stayed static.

There is an actively (solo dev) maintained fork of llama.cpp that sticks close to HEAD but basically applies a rocWMMA patch that can improve performance if you use the llama.cpp FA (still performs worse than w/ FA disabled) and in certain long-context inference generations (on llama-bench and w/ this ShareGPT serving test you won't see much difference) here: https://github.com/hjc4869/llama.cpp - The fact that no one from AMD has shown any interest in helping improve llama.cpp performance (despite often citing llama.cpp-based apps in marketing/blog posts, etc is disappointing ... but sadly on brand for AMD GPUs).

Anyway, for those interested in more information and testing for AI/ML setup for RDNA3 (and AMD ROCm in general), I keep a doc with lots of details here: https://llm-tracker.info/howto/AMD-GPUs

[1] https://embeddedllm.com/blog/vllm-now-supports-running-gguf-...
FWIW, making just 10 might drive that $13 price down quite a bit.

Although, it looks like 1 unit might be closer to $50 (at least for the suppliers I might use), but $150 for 10.

I think costs could be cut somewhat though. The USB->serial chip is nearly $6, but differently packaged it can be $4.40 for 1 or $3.99/ea for 10, and alternative chips that seem like they should be good enough can be cheaper still. The voltage regulator they chose is $1/ea for 500ma, while the one I would normally go to is $0.22/ea for 1000ma (dropping down to $0.13/ea for 10).
it's not AI generated, I did get some help with the copy indeed
can you please share what led you to think it's AI generated?
"Sabbatical" after 1 or 2 years is a joke right? It's no wonder companies are looking hard to ditch entitled software engineering labor as quickly as they can.
Why? What is wrong with fido?
Was this comment written by a bot? The concluding paragraph style and general length suggest to me it was.
lol, actually the AI part came later but probably backfired
Wow, that's high $. The Honda Prologue, which is a rebadged GM blah, can do 230 miles at 70mph (95% of battery), which is a slightly different strategy than out of spec reviews does (https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-honda-prologue-elect...).

This is a rebadged chevy blazer ev, except it (1) doesn't have onstar (yay!), (2) had android auto and apple carplay unlike GM cars.

What's the best tradeoff for cost vs range?
It's about $60k before discounts. The tesla model 3 highland (recent refresh) can do an amazing 370 miles at 70mph. The only problem is it's a tesla.

Out of spec drives until the battery is dead. They haven't tested the honda prologue yet.
Yes and it was one of the best years of my life. I made more money from submitting vulnerability assessments than my day job. I’m structuring my life to do this again.

You get a little lonely as you don’t get the social fix from hanging out with work folk.

Overall the health benefits are immense. Both mental and physical as you have more time to look after yourself.

The success comes in the form of creating a void for opportunities to present themselves. I ended up doing things I never thought I’d do. Some were fun nothing burgers, and others were financially successful. The important thing is I got all my daily chores done first and only coded if I was “bored”. Coding/hacking came last.
Two questions, related:

1. why is this article lumping insurance and property taxes as the problem but never actually specifying how much each contributes? From my experience, neither are particularly expensive and neither come even close to my mortgage.
2. if property taxes ARE high, where the hell are people living? I live in an area with among the highest property tax rates in BC which has relatively high property taxes in Canada and my NET property taxes, before the primary residence grant is $6k on a $1.3m home. My mortgage payments are $3k month. If your property tax is dwarfing your mortgage... Surely your mortgage amount is basically zero (you own most of your home, congrats).
And of course they legally bribe politicians with campaign donations.
Fiber friction is the key to cozy knits
Someone never used intel killer wifi software.
well, if we can get the job down with a simple form, why not?
The goal here is to simplify giving feedback, and no to frame responses with surveys
Thanks a lot
It's the optimization that C++ is unable to perform, not the immutability.
PyPy was a thing and it could have been the basis of Python 3. In fact people DID keep using Python 2 long after Python 3 came out, even though Python 3 used CPython. So they may have gone for much bigger wins. Perl 6 was another matter since it changed the Perl language drastically.
> HN points don't net you anything.

Dang! I thought i was at least earning dang's respect. ^_^